Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Norma URP

Anybody know where load data for Norma URP can be found. I bought an 8# jug but data for it is pretty scarce. I’m running low on H4350 and thought I’d try the URP. Looking specifically for 100gr bullet data in 25-06.

Thanks, Ben

You will be very safe if you bracket URP in between H414 and IMR4350. Clear down on the bottom of Norma website you will find Norma's burn rate chart. IMO, the best in the industry, Norma uses 2 numbers, giving relative velocity vs relative pressure using 4350 as the benchmark.

Thanks,

Ben

Here's a quickload estimate for 100 grain partition. Measure your case capacity and proceed intelligently. URP should be a pretty good choice.

https://forum.nosler.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30254

Good luck and shoot straight y'all

Thanks

Ben.

I just looked up the Norma manual and it doesn't list URP for the 25-06.

But in the powder descriptions it states that URP is similar in burn rate to 204 but on the quick side.

That might be of a little help to you.

URP is very similar to Alliant Re-16 - who have load data for a number of projectiles in the 25-06 on their website.

You put urp in cartridges when reloading?

What in the world does one have to eat to make urp combustible?

URP and 204 often have very similar (or the same) charge weights in Norma's manual. NOT ALWAYS, though. Sometimes they're 2+ grains apart.

Norma's start charge for 204 in the 25-06 with 3 different 100-grain bullets is 51 grains.
51 grains would put you above max for IMR4350 and Win760 both, by Sierra's manual.
51 grains would put you on the high end, but below max, of IMR4350 by Hornady's manual.

FWIW.

I have most of 1 8-pounder of URP left. It's good powder, but my lot is quite a bit slower than published data I have. For that reason plus some other experiences, I will NOT use a QL estimate for unknown-to-me powders, especially off the internet. I appreciate the guys at the Nosler forum, I just don't bet my rifle or my face on their QL runs.
(-:

MZ5,

Exactly.

I used QL a lot for several years, due to being sent each new edition from a website that carried it. Found it wasn't all that accurate, though some people these days seem to think it's more accurate than actual, pressure-tested data. In fact all the versions I used (maybe 7-8) all contained a statement that QL was NOT pressure-tested data, and should be used with even more caution. Dunno if that warning is still included or not.

Over those years I found that QL data, not matter how carefully the measurement of the rifle/brass/bullets/etc., was reasonably accurate about a third of the time, and surprisingly accurate maybe 10% of the time. Otherwise it was very under-pressure 1/3 of the time, and over-pressure 1/3 of the time.This was also the experience of a major piezo-electronic pressure lab, which was sent a pile of ammo loaded by a major bullet company using QL data.

Part of the problem, of course, is that QL is based on closed-bomb tests of specific lots of powder, which can vary +/- around 3% even in carefully blended batches of handloading powders. There's also considerable variation possible in chambers, bore diameters, etc. including throat (or leade) angle, and number and width of lands and grooves.

If somebody wants to believe whatever QL predicts as The Word, then why not? But the program was originally designed as a guide to developing new cartridges, NOT as a handloading "manual."

Great for 6.5 Creedmoor.

Everything is just perfect for Creedmoors. LOL!